Pre-deposit waiver discretion lies with the appellate authority; writ interference is unwarranted when appeal remedies remain pending.

A writ petition challenging a demand for deposit pending appeal was held to be misconceived because the statutory scheme under Section 35F leaves waiver of pre-deposit to the appellate authority, which must record reasons. With no recovery proceedings shown to be pending, the grievance amounted to a request for interim relief in a matter already within the Commissioner (Appeals)' jurisdiction. The court therefore found judicial interference unwarranted and held that the appeal and waiver request had to be considered by the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand for deposit pending appeal was maintainable and whether the Court should interfere with the appellate authority's discretion under the pre-deposit waiver provision.

Analysis: The assessment order had already given rise to an appeal, and the statutory scheme under Section 35F vested the appellate authority with discretion to waive deposit for recorded reasons. The Court found that no recovery proceedings were shown to be pending and that the grievance essentially sought an interim order from the writ court in a matter within the appellate authority's jurisdiction. Since the appeal and waiver request were to be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), judicial interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

---